[JDUB]

I am looking to buy a new DSLR camera, and am trying to decide which one to get. I am leaning towards the D40 for several reasons. I don't have a lot of money, and I can get a D40 package with a 200mm for under $600.
I have had several different people who are photographers highly recommend this camera. I cannot afford the D40x, but if I get the D40 I can use those lenses if i ever upgrade.

The only problem I see with it is that it is only 6 mp, but i don't think that matters unless you are going to blow the pictures up big, which i'm not.
I have looked into the canons, but everything i've been told is go with nikon.

what is you guys opinion?

[Knucklehead]

I'll elaborate more when I'm not so tired, but I've always been a canon guy and wouldn't have a Nikon if you gave it to me. I have the XTI now and LOVE it.

[JDUB]

i know its like a war between canon and nikon guys, but i'm looking for reasons. is there anything specifically different that i should consider, or would either one work just as well

[El Scorcho]

Here's a big huge reason not to go with Nikon: Lenses!

It may not seem like a big deal to you now, but being able to change lenses is half (if not all) of what owning an SLR is all about. Even if you don't plan to own a lot of lenses, if you're serious about owning an SLR, you'll eventually find you want another one. I even rent lenses from time to time.

I say all of that just to say that <a href="http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/contr ... 1">Canon's lenses</a> are not only far superior to Nikon's, their lineup is much more extensive. Go Canon! There is no other.

[LUconn]

don't listen to him, there's no reason. It's like the Playstation guys that think everything Xbox sucks. They're like the same camera only the D40 is cheaper and has less MP. The only other thing you might want to think about is the D40 won't be able to autofocus with every lense. It doesn't have a motor in the camera that turns the lense, it sends a signal to the lense which focuses itself.

[El Scorcho]

don't listen to him, there's no reason. It's like the Playstation guys that think everything Xbox sucks. They're like the same camera only the D40 is cheaper and has less MP. The only other thing you might want to think about is the D40 won't be able to autofocus with every lense. It doesn't have a motor in the camera that turns the lense, it sends a signal to the lense which focuses itself.

No, I'm really not just blowing smoke here. The Canon lens lineup can't be beat. The Nikon camera bodies are fine by me. I really don't think there's much of a difference in the entry-level SLR bodies from either company. It's the lens lineup that makes a difference to me.

[jcmanson]

XBOX all the way!!!

[LUconn]

I'm guessing someone who's buying an entry level SLR isn't gonna need anyting more than pretty basic lenses. And if you're ready to purchase some obscure lense for a few thousand dollars, you're probably ready to upgrade bodies at that point.

This is more than enough on the lense front: http://nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5

I think the main thing for you is to go to BestBuy or Ritz and hold the cameras. I went with Nikon because I already had some basic Nikon software, and my mother-in-law has an older SLR with some pretty good lenses that I could borrow.

[El Scorcho]

I'm guessing someone who's buying an entry level SLR isn't gonna need anyting more than pretty basic lenses. And if you're ready to purchase some obscure lense for a few thousand dollars, you're probably ready to upgrade bodies at that point.

I disagree. I bought my XTi knowing nothing about SLR's or cameras in general. Now I'm already saving for my third lens and I'm completely content with my camera body.

[LUconn]

and I'm completely content with my camera body.

Well, I guess that's my basic point to JDUB. You will be happy with which ever one you choose.

[RubberMallet]

everyone i know that has bought a decent camera has bought the xti...

me? my kodak 8 megapixel cheapo works just fine...

[El Scorcho]

Also, though it is the older model, there's nothing wrong with the Rebel XT. Good camera for the price. You can get it sub-$400 now.

And another thing...

Word on the street is that Canon will introduce a new Digital Rebel this month (or upgrade the XTi/XTi kit in some way). If that happens, you can look to save money on the current model sometime next month.

[Knucklehead]

I bought my XTi in November, and it's already dropped $50 or so since then on B&H.
I guess my point on the Canon thing is the same as Scorchy's. The lenses Can't be beaten. If you are buying the camera for simple candid's of you dog, wife, kids then get either, but if you are buying it and may want to do some higher end stuff down the road get the Canon.

[LUconn]

I think these links are relavent here for the "higher end stuff":

http://www.flickr.com/cameras/nikon/d40/
http://www.flickr.com/cameras/canon/eos ... rebel_xti/

Look at the pictures. You'll be happy with either.

[LUconn]

The lenses Can't be beaten.

Both of you said that. I don't know as much about photography as either of you most likely since I'm a novice, but I don't see that. Do they take better pictures? Do that last longer? They have about the same amount of lenses offered. What makes canon's better?

[El Scorcho]

What makes canon's better?

There are two things that make Canon's lenses better to me. The first is the overall lineup. Canon has everything covered A-Z with entry-level, mid-grade and pro lenses for each. Nikon has a lot of lenses listed on their site, but there are holes. For example, Nikon has nothing to compete with Canon's 50mm L series lens. There are others, but that one immediately jumped out at me looking at the Nikon list. Their long zooms are all pretty slow (in terms of aperture, not speed), too.

The second is the quality. Canon's "L" series has been the professional standard in photography for years now. The quality of the glass, the image stabilization, the USM motors, etc. are all the highest of the high-end. Don't get me wrong, the L series is priced such that only professionals will buy them. I realize that most people looking for their first SLR would never buy an L series lens. However, there is a definite trickle-down effect when it comes to the technology developed in the L series. A prime example of this is Canon's (relatively) new EF-S 18-55 f/2.8 IS/USM lens. It's designed exclusively for the entry to mid level digital SLR's in their lineup, but may as well be an L series lens. All of the tech that's in that lens trickled down from the L series to the entry level. Also, I may not be able to afford to buy an L series lens, but I can certainly afford to rent one when I know I'm going to something in advance. Simply owning a Canon gives me that option.

I'm not going to pretend that I understand everything about UD elements and aspherical glass, but I know that most every camera review site I read highlighted Canon's lens quality as the prime reason that no one else was really offering them solid competition in the SLR market outside of entry-level cameras. Both companies offer solid-entry level bodies, but past that Canon seems to run away with things. (I mean, have you seen the EOS 1-Ds Mark III?!? Holy crap.)

I have no problem with Nikon cameras and I don't doubt they can take some fine pictures. I just know that buying an SLR means buying into that company's entire lens system, and I like the options offered by Canon much more than I do Nikon. Even if you think you might just get by with the kit lens (like I did), you're stuck in that system until you can afford to buy another body.

[JDUB]

see, i got a gps for christmas and returned it, and now my parentals won't give me the money, they say pick out something else. a new camera is about all i can think of, but the gps was only $200, so i'm not looking to spend a whole lot. and i know that once i go with a brand, i'm stuck with the lenses like scorcho said.

the thing is, my dad is a nikon guy, so i have some old glass i can use but its manual focus
i know several professionals who are nikon guys
the photography teacher at LU recommends the D40

i need to look into the prices of the xt some more and the lenses i guess. another thing is the nikon comes with a good kit lense, and from what you've said it sounds like the canon doesn't

[El Scorcho]

see, i got a gps for christmas and returned it, and now my parentals won't give me the money, they say pick out something else. a new camera is about all i can think of, but the gps was only $200, so i'm not looking to spend a whole lot. and i know that once i go with a brand, i'm stuck with the lenses like scorcho said.

the thing is, my dad is a nikon guy, so i have some old glass i can use but its manual focus
i know several professionals who are nikon guys
the photography teacher at LU recommends the D40

i need to look into the prices of the xt some more and the lenses i guess. another thing is the nikon comes with a good kit lense, and from what you've said it sounds like the canon doesn't

Well if you're on a limited budget, go with the best you can afford. That's always a sound choice. And, from what I've heard, you're right about the D40 kit lens. That's one of the reasons I hear Canon is looking to update the XTi (or at least the XTi kit) this month.

[JDUB]

there was a special for the d40 that was 100 off the kit with the 18-55 and the 55-200 lenses, but i think it ended. that was a really good deal too

[JDUB]

is anyone looking to sell one of these cameras? if i could see it first i may buy one used, but i wouldn't if i couldn't see it first

[LUconn]

since all of the camera nerds have flocked to this thread, has anybody gotten theirs cleaned before? I've got something in the body somewhere that's producing a black dot in my pictures. I've tried to do some light cleaning myself but I'm too scared to go any further and it's still there. Does Ritz do this?


Also, where on earth do you rent lenses Scorcho? I've never heard of such a thing.

[JDUB]

i'm leaning towards this kit. i've read really good reviews about both lenses that come with this kit.

this one is cheaper, but the lense isn't the VR (image stabilization), and i read that its worth the extra money to get the other one

[Sly Fox]

Since this thread seems to have legs, I wish I could contribute something to this discussion. But I use a video camera and a point & click.

I will say that just because you invest in high dollar gear it doesn't mean you will take great pics. A shooter's eye is the greatest tool.

[JDUB]

i'm taking a digital photography class this semester, so hopefully it will improve my limited photography knowledge. i also have several friends who are into photography.

I am looking forward especially to taking pictures at LU games, cause a point and click just don't cut it with sports

[El Scorcho]

Also, where on earth do you rent lenses Scorcho? I've never heard of such a thing.

http://www.rentglass.com/

I think there are a couple of other sites out there that do the same thing, but I've had good enough experiences with RentGlass.com to make me stick with them.

i'm leaning towards this kit. i've read really good reviews about both lenses that come with this kit.

That looks like a good kit. The lenses included cover a lot of ground, though they're not very fast. The image stabilization will be a big plus when you're at a football game with your long lens zoomed in. I'd go with that and see if you could pick up a fast fixed-length lens for portraits at some point down the road. Something in the 35 to 50mm range that's at least an f/2.8 would probably be ideal. But to start with, that looks like a great kit.

I will say that just because you invest in high dollar gear it doesn't mean you will take great pics. A shooter's eye is the greatest tool.

I absolutely concur. It has taken me over a year to learn to use my SLR, starting from no knowledge. That's everything from using the camera to framing, composition, etc. and I'd hardly say I've got the hang of it yet. I get lucky every once and a while. Shoot in RAW format, take lots of pictures and have patience.